Methods; Word LiSt,s - files.eric.ed.gov · (Dilts, 1983); Personal strategies; A strategy is an...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 281 228 CS 210 456

AUTHOR Malloy, Thomas E.TITLE Principles for Teaching Cognitive Strategies: The

Case of Spelling.PUB DATE 7 Apr 87NOTE 28p.PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Cognitive Processes; *English Instruction; Higher

Education; *Imagery; Learning Strategies; ListeningComprehension; *Spelling Instruction; *TeachingMethods; Word LiSt,s

IDENTIFIERS Dilt (Robert); Generative Processes; SpellingPatterns; Visual Cues

ABSTRACTFocusing on the sequence c) cognitive processes of

spellers of varying ability, a study evaluated the effectivenesS ateaching package that adapts Robert Dilt's spelling strategy to thecollege classroom; Subjects, 25 students from an introductory levelpsychology class, were divided into three groups, each of whichparticipated in two one-hour sessions involving spelling pretests andposttests. One experimental group was trained in a generativespelling strategy using visual imagery, another was taught standardspelling rules, and the control group received no training. Analysisof results indicated that the spelling of both experimental groupsimproved considerably more than that of the control group, but thatthe generalization of training to new spelling lists was onlyeffective with the group trained in the use of visual imagery. (Theusefulness of parallel visual and phonetic spelling strategies isdiscussed, and the spelling package is used as an example to discussseveral general theoretical principles in designing methods to teachcognitive strategies. A figure illustrating the test results andthree pages of references are included.) (JD)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

41Al.S._DEPARTINENT_OF _EDUCATION_ _

Off ze of Educational Research end Improvament

FJUCATIONAL-RESOLIPCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

*his document nos- -been ceproduted aseseived train the person or ordanantion

originating II0 Momr_changes Rave been made to improve

reproduction Clutthty

Points of view Or opinions staled this documeet do not necessaniy represent officialOERI position or policy

r.N.;

Principles for Teaching CognitiVe Strategies:'CO(NJ The Case of Spelling

C=1 Thomas E. Malloy1.1.1 Department of Psychology

University of Utah

Version April 7, 1987

Running Heads PRINCIPLES FOR TEACHING COGNITIVE STRATEGIES

"_'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Thomas E. Malloy

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

2BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Principles for Teaching Cognitiva Strategies

Abstract

A framework for considering the nature of cognitive strategies is

presented, along with a college classroom package for teaching a VisUal

spelling strategy derived from the framework; In an experiMent eValUating

the effectiveness of the cognitive spelling package one group was taught

to spell via the spelling package, a second group via standard spelling

rules, and a third group was not trained. Both training groups showed

significant improvement in spelling from pre- to post-tests compared to

the no-training control. The spelling package group showed generally

larger tpellihg gains than did the standard training group; Only the

spelling package group showed significant generalization to new lists of

words. The usefUlness of parallel visual and phonetic spelling strategies

is discussed. The spelling package is used as an example to discuss

several general theOretical principles in designing methods to teach

cugnitive Strategies.

3

Principles for Teaching Cognitive Strategies

CognitiVe Strategies

and a Classroom Procedure for Teaching Spelling

Spelling provides a well-defined context for the discussion of a

framework specifying the nature crf cognitive strategies as well as the

elucidation of important detign principles for generating methods of

teaching cogntive strategies. While we have made substantial progress in

theoretical frameworks for writing as process, the question remains (e.g. ,

Harris, 1993), do we have classroom procedures for teaching process? This

paper will focus on explicit classroom techniques for teaching spelling to

demonstrate process approaches to teaching. There are many theoretical

orientations for speaking of cognitive strategies, the approach taken here

is based on a framework that is expliCit and that has proven useful in

psychotherapy (DiIts, Grinder, Bandler, and DeLozier, 1979) and education

(Dilts, 1983);

Personal strategies; A strategy is an ordered sequence of

cognitive-behavioral experiences that is repeated in the tamb Or similar

contexts. As experience is personal; so must strategies be. For example,

when I tie my shoelaces in the morning, there is A sequenCe of

experiencesmostly of small muscle sensations aod skins pressures in my

fingersthat are repeated from past shoe-tying contexts. Even though

millions of people tie their shoes each day, the exact sequence of my

experiences, probably slightly different from anyone else's, must occur

for me personally if my shoes are to be tied. While I will discuss

strategies abstractly and symbolically; almost as if they are extant

entities in themselves, for the purpose of teaching, it is crucial to hold

in mind that each learner must coms to a sequence of experienceS that

functions well personally. The fact that this strategic knowledge is

4

Principles for Teaching Cognitive Strategiet

4

personal does not mean, however, that active teaching is not useful.

Three or four year old children, faced with untied laces, are rather

unlikely to discover effective knots on their own. Active teaching is

essential. In whatever manner we teach the child knots--pictures of

knott, stories of rabbits popping out of holes and running around trees,

or demonttratiOnt of finger movements--our teaching must be aimed at

providing A tonteXt in which children create sequences of personal

experiences that produce knots for each of them. This paper deals with a

Spelling Package that takes students through a strategic sequence of

experiences that produces standard spelling.

For many theorists the crucial building blocks of cognitive strategies

are the various types Of cadet (Or representational systems) involved in

human thought and action. Personke and Yee (1966), Grinder and Bendier

(1976), Simon (1976) And Merchant and Mellby (1984), among others, all

have proposed at least three impOrtant ways of representing sensory

input; These theorists pdtit visual, auditory and kinesthetic cognitive

systems for representing and processing information. From this point of

view a person has the ability tb see vitual images, to hear iqternal

sounds, including internal vOiCe, and tio feel the sensations of motoric

behavior alOng With various other internal and external feelings such as

emotions; hot, cold, pretture, etc. Tying a knot may involve any

combination ...rf these three codes; remembering a picture of a knot may

help, saying words like "right over left, then left over right" may help,_

or moving our fingers may do it.

Spelling Strategies. In the Dilts et al. (1979) system, which is

evolved from the millse, Galanter, and Pribram (1960) TOTE mode7,

strategies are described in termt of the content-free process of

5


person's experience moving in sequence from one repreSentational system to

another. For example, suppose someone asks aloud hoW to pell

"Albuquerque," Dilts (1983) found that man;' e::cellent spellers will take

this auditory input and coronmrt it into a remembered visual image of the

word "Albuquerque," If this image gives them a feeling Of faMiliArity

they will output (write or spealk) by reading off the visual image.

Removing the content from this description, structurally the strategy

movet frOM an eXternal auditory experience into internal visual experience

int0 internal kinesthetic experience into appropriate kinesthetiC

experience for output. If V represents visual representationS, A

auditory, K kinesthetic, ard i and e represent internally and externally'

initiated processes, the structure of this spelling strategy can be

expressed in Shorthand notation (Dilts et al;, 1979) as: Ae --> Vi Ki

--> K. Different spellers, f course, use different strategies. These

strategies are viewed as learned, not inherited, and they change within a

person depending on task demands and context. Often they are overlearned

and automatic and therefore not conscious, as is sometimes the casrl with a

welllearned knOt. JUSt because a strategy is welllearned and

unconscious does not mean that the underlying sequences of experiencs

cannot be Uncovered and taught.

Certainly, writers use diverse spelling strategies. Both Dilts (1983)

and Marsh, FriedMan, Welch, And Desberg (1980) report evidence of spelling

strategiet in Which Visual imagery is crucial. Such a speller is most

easily identified with the "Chinese" type person who uses worci apecific

assd-ciationt in reading and spelling (Baron 1979: Baron, Treiman, Wilf

Kellman, 1980). Oh the other hand, there is a class of phoretic spelling

strategiet bated primarily on auditory representations (eig,, Barron,


6

1980; Frith; 1980). Pe o! primarily using such strategies have been

called "PhOneCiens" (Beron, 1979). Further, SiMon (1976) suggests that

there are kinesthetic spelling strategies involving the hand movements

necessary for output; in essence, when we are typing, we let our fin-01-S

do the spelling; These different strategies are net, Of CpUrse, mUtuelly

exclusive; Barron (1980) suggests that they can run in parallel, While

Personke and Yee (1963) and Baker (1980) assert that 5itu-ational vae-iablt

and task demands determine which of many strategies may be used. In

general, the more strategies people have available to do a task; the more

options they have for performing effectively; It is in ths sense that

the present study proposes and evaluates a visual imagery spelling

strategy, not as opposed to other strategies, but as an effective;

parallel, alternative that is easily taught in the college classroom;

That visual imagery strategies can be involved in spelling is well

documented, e.g.1 Ehri (1980), Dobie (1986). That visual representations

of words have real advantages is also well documented. Standard English

spelling is.chaotic (Baron et al., 1980) with no straightforward phonetic

representations (Baker, 1980) so that a visual representation may be

necessary to spell irregular words. Indeed, there is some evidence that

teaching a visual strategy can improve the spelling of words (Redeker,

1963) a d nonsense syllables (Ehri, 1980). Sloboda (1980) suggested that

knowledge of spelling rules may distinguish poor from competent spellers

but that excellent spellers need more specific information for cases whre

the rules do not provide unique spellings. Dilts (1983) and Marsh et I.

(1980) both found that very proficient spellers make use of visual

ihformetion. This is consistent with a large literature te.g., Paivio,

1971, 00. 327-352) showing that instructions to engage in visual imagery

7


7

strategies leads to improved memory performance for verbal materials

relative to instructions to engage in auditory strategis.

In studying the sequence of cognitive processes of excellent spellers

and contrasting thrmi with those of poor spellers; Dilts (1983) has

developed the spelling strategy (described above) in which visual imagery

it the key element. As such it represerC:s a detailed elaboration for

teaching the sensory development of visualization suggested by Dobie

(1986). The present study describes a teaching package that adapts Dilts'

spelling strategy to the college classroom and then reports data regarding

the effects Of this teaching package on the spelling performance of

rollege students. This Spelling Package carefully guides students through

a sequence of experiencet aimed at producing standard spelling.

Method

Desiqh. The tpelling experiment comprised three groups, each of whic_

participated in two onehour sessions one week apart. The Imagery Group

was trained in a generative spellihg strategy using visual imagery. The

purpose of this group was tO evaluate the effettiveness of the imagery

strategy. The Auditory Rule Group was taught ttandard spelling rules,

e.g., ni before e eRcept..." When studying word lists sublects in this

group were instructed to use these standard rules and to repeat the

spelling of words using their inner voice. An extensive literature (e.

Paivio, 1971). of carefully controlled laboratory studies has shown that

the effect of imagery instructions on memory for verbal material is not

due to procedural artifacts such as number of rehearsals. Building on

this basic researth knowledge base, the design of the present study

evaluates the effectiveness Of imagery ihttruttions at the more molar

level of classroom instruction. Thus, the Our-pate of the Auditory Rule


Group was to control for placebo effects, positive set, and demand to

perform well on spelling tests by giving a group of subjects contact with

the experimenter whict was comparable to that of the Imagery Group. The

purpose o+ this group was not to replicate already establihed laboratory

controls nor was it a rtgorous evaluation of the effectiveness of standara

spelling rules. The Control Group received no trainina; these subjects

simply took the spelling tests. The purpose of the Control Group was to

establish the baseline difficulty of the spelling tests against which to

measure improvement due to training.

Each group was given Four spelling tests, a pretest at the beginning

of session one and three posttests at the end of session two. The three

posttests prObed two conditions affecting spelling memory for a list of

WOrdt: (1) Twenty minutes versus one week time delay between the learnirg

and testing of a word list; and (2) explicit experimenter-controlled

guidance versus subject-controlled generalization in the use of a strategy

tb learn a word list. The Guidance and Twenty-minute Delay test was given

tWenty Mintitet after Subjects were guided by the experimenter in the use

Of A tte-Atev tb learn a word list. The Guidance and One-week Delay test

Wat given one week after subjects were guided through a strategy to learn

a word list, The Generalization and One-week Delay test was given one

Week after subjects were asked to generalize their training by using the

Strategy appropriate to their group to learn a word list. In this latter

case subjects were not guided explicitly through the strategy for learning

the word litt.

SUbjett4. Twenty-five subjects were recruitee from Introductory

Psychology classes and received extra course credit for partjcipation.

One subject (in the Imagery Group: failed to show up for the second

9


9

session and was dropped from the experiment; Subiects were recrUited in

groups rather than individually: Three sign-up sheets were posted And all

subjects who signed up on a given sheet were run together and conttituted

one of the three groups; Ten subjects signed up for the Imagery Group,

seven for the Auditory Rule Group, and Tight for the Control Group. The

OUrpote b+ running subjects in groups was to simulate classroom

conditions.

Materi-al-s. There we.- four lists of twenty words each; The eighty

words were taken from the liets of Fergus (1983). Each lst of twenty

contained four words from each of the following categories: (1) silent

letters (debt); (2) tOund-alike suffixes ible-able, ary-ery, ise-ize-yze,

ance-ence); (3) ie-ei; (4\ doubling final consonant or not (witty,

taxing); and (5) variant plurals (wives).

The eighty words were printed individually on large flash cards that

could be seen by a group. Tett theett were provided to sub-iects for the

spelling tests.

Each subject in the the AUditory Rule Group was given a handout which

contained rules for ie-ei, VArieht plur3lsq dro0Oing a final "e" before a

vowel, doublins cOhednAhte. homonyms, and suffiXes. This handout included

a paragraph with numerous misspellings to correct and a list of 79

correctly-spelled practice WordS to study. Six of these 79 words were on

one of the four epelling tette.

Description of Spellind-Pac-kape. The training of the imagery strategy

was based on D:lts (1983) bUt Modified For the preSent study. The

_ _ _strategy taught here triggers off either an interne, or erternal auditory

experivIce of a word which is tranelated into An internal visualization of

the word marked by special vitual characterittict a favorite color)

10


10

which evokes a feeling of familiarity; If the visualized word has the

appropriate characteristics and is familiar it is then output by

appropriate kinesthetic movements. This can be expressed as: A(e or i)

--> Vi/Vi --> Ki --> K where the slash indicates comparison. The

comparison is to make sure that current visualization of the word hat thE

special visual characteristics.

Training consisted of steps designed to evoke a sequence of

experiences within each subject that follows the above abstract outline of

a spelling strategy. In the construction of knowledge, personal

experience is primary. Thus it is important that each person learning the

spelling strategy have all the component experiences and be able to

sequence them in a functional way. This is important to remember when

applying these techniques in the classroom.

The firtt ttep established a visual imagery reference experience so

that the ter-in "Vitual imagery" referred to the same type of cognitive

experience for the subjects and experimenter. The subjects were asked to

recall "the house before the house you are now living in and tell which

Way the frOnt door opened--right or left." They were also asked to

picture how someone they know well looks when happy, sad, and angry; and

to picture scenes from recent movies. This is an important step because

people are often confused by the request to make a visual image; For

example, many- people have excessively high standards for visual images,

expectim: t.em to be as clear as a photo. Giving people simple imagery

tasks that theY can succeed at allows them to become familiar and

zomfortable with the experience of manipulating imagery. The second step

establisheJ reference experiences for the visualization of words;

Subjects were asked to visualize the address on the front of their houses,

Principles for Teaching Cognitive Strategiet

11

their names on Mailboxes or nameplatet, A familiar billboard slogan, and a

mOvie title, such as "Star Wart."

The third ttep trained Vitualilation in spellingi Subjects were shown

a flash card with A shOrt word on it. TheY were asked to look at the word

and then to look up and visualize it, loOking back at the card as many

times as necessary; Subjects were encouraged to close their eyes or to

stare at the ceiling while visualizing the -correct spelling and to

visualize it in some ,:iay that marked it as distinct from Other visual word

memories. They might visualize it in their faVorite color, in a

particular script, with a frame around it or theY might use any other

visual marker that was effective;

This visual marking is useful since at the time Of recall it allows

subjects to distinguish marked, correctly-spelled vitUal meMories from

unmarked and possibly incorrectly-spelled memoriet. Thit it iMPOrtant

since many subjects have built up an internal dictionary of intorrSttly

visualized words through the use of inappropriate spelling ttrategitt. In

terms of shorthand for the strategy; at the time of reCall the Vitual

marking (e.g. green words) allows the subjects to compare (Vi/Vi) their

memory for a word to see if it is marked correctly (green). SUbjectt were

told to practice this visualization until the marked VitUal image gaVe

them a feeling of familiarity; It should be noted that Diltt (1993)

strongly suggests that subiects look up and to the left While Vitualiting

the corre:t spelling, but this was not done in the present ttudy.

When all subjects indicated that they could visualiZe the Wimi-d, the

card was removed and one subiect, on an irregular basis, Wag atked tO

epell the word backwardsi The ability to spell a word backwerdt it one

criterion for determining ii a subject is using a visual at compared to a

12


12

phonetic (auditory) strategy. A clear visual image can be read backwards

nearly as well as frontwards; In contrast it is nearly impossible to

sound out many words (e.g., Albuquerque) backwards in the same way that

aUdio fapes do nOt sound the same when run backwards; While clear imagery

of a word makes spelling it backwards relatively easy, vague imagery, or

no imagery at all, makes this task difficult; Therefore, in teaching a

visualization strategy, asking people to spell backwards as well as

forward is an easy way to discover those who are relying on phonetic

strategies or who have vague imagery. It also convinces people that they

must learn to picture words so they can answer questions;

The experimenter continued to show short words, asking subjects to

spell backwards and frontwards. When subjects successfully spelled a

word, they were asked to notice and develop the feeling of familiarity

that the marked image gave them. Some subjects learned this strategy

quickly; others did not. Those who did not were told to change the size,

shape, or color of the visualized words or to put frames around them if

these operations made remembering images easier. Subjects who had

difficulty were frequently called on to spell backwards until all could do

the task well; Then the length of the words was increased.

The fourth step was "chunking" (e.g., Miller, 1956) long words. Many

people can visualize long words, but others cannot. 3ublects who could

not visualize long words were asked to visualize them farther away or

smaller, which sometimes helps. If they were still unable to vitualize

long words subjects were taught to chunk long words into small

partspreferably not syllables visualizing each chunk separately. They

were taught to overlap the chunks so that there was a natural bridge

between them when it came time to spell. For example, in spelling

Principlet for Teaching Cognitive Strategies

13

"propellant," a given subject might easily be able to visualize "propel"

and "lant." But, especially when spelling beckwards, this sublect might

become lOst in the middle of the word. In such cases subjects were asked

to imagine a bridge chunk like "ella;" Often a bridge chUnk it all that

is needed to to be able to spell a difficult word. This was not necessary

for aIl subjects; but quite essential for others.

The final step was using imagery to help ensure that subjects would

use the spelling strategy on their own in the future. Subjects were asked

to imagine typical remembered scenes when they had come across words that

they did not know how to spell. They were asked to imagine themselves in

those situations in the future first finding the correct spelling (perhaps

by using a dictionary); and then visualizing the word with special

characteristics until they could spell it backwards.

Procedure. At the beginning of session one ail subjects were given a

pretest. Then training commenced. Subjects in the Imagery Group were

trained in the Spelling Package. Subjects in the Auditory RuIe Group were

taught standard spelling rules using lectures, photocopied handouts

extracted from textbooks and practice-lists of words. The spelling rules

pertained to "ei/ie," variant plurals, dropping a final "e" before a

vowel, changes in the final "y" before plurals, and doubling consonants;

This training involved the same amount of time as the training given the

Imagery Groupi The Auditory Rule Group was trained on rules for each of

the five categories of words included in the spelling lists (see Materials

section) to ensure that the strategy used by this group applied to the

words it was to learn. The Control group was not trained.

After training all subjects were shown the Guidance and One-week Delay

tiord list by use of flash cards. Imagery Group subjects were lead through

1 4

Principlet for Teaching Cognitive Strategies

14

the imagery strategy; they were shown each word from the lit by flash

card and carefully led through steps three and four above. After the

flash card was removed, one subject was chosen in an irregular manner to

spell each word backwards to ensure that subjects felt compelled to use

images. Auditory Rule Group subjects were carefully led through an

appropriate spelling rule for each word as it was shown on the flash

card. These subjects were asked to spell the word to themselves using

their inner voice. Then one of them was asked to spell the word aloud.

Thus, the experiences of the subjects in these two groups was comparable.

Subjects in each group saw each word for the same amount of time and were

guided through a specific strategy for processing the word. All subjects

knew tt, on a haphazard basis, they might be atked to spEli each word.

The major difference in these two groups was the use of a visual versus

auditory strategy; Control subjects were simply shown the words by +lath

card and told to learn their spelling since they would be tested oh the

spelling in a week. Subjects were not tested on their Ability to spell

the Guidance and One Week Delay list of words until Oh0 week later during

session two (during the Guidance and One-week Delay test). The purpose of

a week's delay was to determine the permanency of the learning resulting

from the use of the various strategie.

After the Guidance and One-week Delay list, all sublectt were Shown

the Generalization and One-week Delay list by means of flash cards.

Subjects in the Imagery Group were asked to use the imagery strategy.

They were not, however, led through the strategy or quizzed Oh the

backwards spelling of these words; Subjects in the Auditory Rule Group

were asked to use the spelling rules that they had learned, while subjects

in the Control Group were simply shown the words. Testing on the

15


15

Generalization and One-week Delay list occurred one week later; The

purpose of the Generalization and One-week Delay list was to simulate

ecologically valid conditions in which subiects were asked to use a

learning strategy on their own and had to spell words at a later time;

The second session opened with a review of the appropriate strategy

for the two training groups. The subjects were then shown the Guidance

and Twenty-minute Delay list by flash cards. In the Imagery Group

subjects were led through the imagery strategy for each word. In the

Auditory Rule Group subjects were led through an applicable spelling rule

for each word. Control subjects were merely shown the words. The words

on the Guidance and Twenty-minute Delay list were tested approximately

twenty minutes later during the Guidance and Twenty-minute Delay test, the

purpose of which was to determine if the various strategies would produce

effects under the best of conditions: (1) explicit use of each strategy

and (2) a short time delay.

After learning the Guidance and Twenty-minute Delay list, all sublects

were given three spelling tests: the Guidance and One-week Delay Teet,

the Generalization and One-week Delay test, and finally the Guidance And

Twenty-ffiinute Delay test. On the tests the subjects spelled from hearing

the lists read. After the tests the subjects Were debriefed and given

credit for participation.

Results

Figure 1 hows the number of spelling errors oct of twenty as a joint

function of training group and test; As can be seen from the control

curve of Figure 1, the four tests differed in difficulty Slightly; Thete

differences in difficulty were nOt significant; for example, the

difference between the pretest and the generalization test for the Control

16


16

Group was not significant.

Insert Figure 1 about here

The most important data pattern in Figure 1 is the interaction of the

three training groups with the four tests. As can be seen from Figure 1,

the three groups start out essentially the same on the pretest (the small

differences between groups are not significant), After that the two

training groups diverge from the no-treatment control. This overall

divergence between the training groups and the control group is supported

by a Significant Training by Testing interaction, F (6,63) = 2 78, E <

.05.

Given the significant overall interaction, the differences between the

two training curves were tested by a priori orthogonal comparisons,

one-tailed, using a t-ratio (see Kirk, 1968, p. 73). Rather than using

the pooled error term suggested by KIrk, individual error terms were

computed For each t to keep the t-ratios fully independent (Kirk, 1968, p.

74) in a manner similar' to Keppel (1982, p. 432). The small differences

between the Auditory Rule Group and the Imagery Group at pretraining were

not significant. After guidance and a twenty minute delay, the Imagery

Group made significantly fewer spelling errors, (Imagery mean = 1.11, S =

.99; Auditory. mean = 2.43, S = 1.59; t = 1.90, df = 14, E < 05).

Similarly, the Imagery Group made less errors on the Guidance and One-week

Delay test (Imagery mean = 1.33, S = 1.41; Auditory mean = 3.85, S = 2.23;

t = 2.550 dt- = 14, a < .025). But spelling superiority of ',:he Imagery

Group over the Auditory Rule Group on the Generalization and One-week

Delay tett (Imagery mean = 2.78, S = 2.78; AuditorY mean = 4.43, S = 3.54)

7

Principles for Teaching CognitiVe Strategies

17

was not sjegnificant; Yet the Imagery Group performed significantly better

on the generalization test than did the Control (Control mean = 6;78,

3;77; t = 1.99; df = 15; E < ;05) while the Auditory Rule Group did not

differ from the the Control on the generalization test.

Discussion

In summary, both types of training were effective compared to a

no-trainng cow:rol, tut the generalization of training to new lists of

Words was only effective in the Imagery Group. The two training groups

differed on the twenty minute and one-week delay t:=sts, but not on the

generalization test.

During the 7nput (or coding or study) phase, the Spelling Pacage

allows a teacher to teach students to look at an external visual

representation of a word and transform it into a functionally useful

internal image (marked by some visual characteristic such as a favorite

COlor); This visual marking acts to distinguish for subjects a correctly

spelled visual memory learned by use of the spelling strategy from a

previous, and possibly incorrectly spelled, memory. The teacher's

criteribn fOr knowing when students have functionally useful internal

images of words is when they can spell those words backwards. During the

OutpUt (Or decoding or performance) phase, the Spel:ing Package allows

students to respond to auditory input (either internal auditory retulting

from the writing process or external auditory resulting from a spelling

question from another person) and transform it into a remembered visual

image that has the appropriate visual markings thus evoking a feeling of

familiarity; If the visual image is familiar, it is translated

kinesthetically into written output. Thus the sequence in the performance

stage of the strategy triggered from an auditory (internal or external)

18

FrincirleS for Teaching Cognitive Strategies

18

sensation into an internal visual image marked by appropriate

characterittics and a feeling of familiarity into approprie.te kinesthetic

MOVemente to prOduce an external visual experience of a written word.

Thit Strategy, while it parallels that of itihy good spellers; is somewhat

simpler a d less inclutive than the one desigred by Dilts (1983).

One qualification on the usefulness of this spelling strategy is it

takes time and effort to build a substantial internal lexicon of correctly

visualized words; In particular, poor spellers IOW read from partial

visual cues (Frith 1978) will not have a lat-ge litt Of visuallY remembered

words to refer to when spelling; The strategy does not trantfOrm a poor

speller into a good speller in the sense of instant knowledge of the

spelling of a large number of words; But it does something just as

important. It teaches the poor speller a process which enables goOd

spelling. This is not trivial for, as Ormrod (1986) has shown, poor

spellers do not benefit as much from intentional learning as do good

spellers, which is another way of saying that even when poor spellert put

their minds to it, they do not have a strategy which enables theM to learn

the spellings of words; But; even though the spelling strategy does not

give poor =spellers a large number of correctly spelled wordt, it is

certainly easy enough to use it to learn the difficult words that are

repeater' within, say, one assignment. In this way, assignment by

assignment, an internal dictionary of correctly spelled words can be

sAeadily built up.

The current thrust to teach students cognitive processes e.g., Hayes

& Flower, 1980) necessitates the consideration of pedagogical principles

for designing effective methods for such teaching; The spelling strategy

eXhibits one of the most important criteria of a teaching

1 9


19

methodgenerativity, It is gvnerative in tne sense that, once taught, it

allows students to create knowledge of spelling across many different

situations on their own without teachers; The strategy dOOS not -rtioe

apply to a few words but changes students' cognitve processes in a way

that generalizes to learning to spell words in general, I have found this

to be a confidence builder, especially in the pre,talent context in which

ttudents think that processes such as spelling are what writing is About.

If, foe the first time, they discover that they can change some aspect of

their Writing Ability they are likely to be open to the possibility that

they can change in othe?r more substantive, ways;

If a strategy is truly genercive, one consequence shuuld be that its

use generalizes easily to new materials, The Imagery Group showed

evidence of such generalization Wien compared to the Control Group; But

it did not show significantly superior generalization than the Auditory

Rule Group. Since the rules used in the Auditory Rule Group were also

generative and since the word lists on the spelling tests did not incluce

any exceptions to these rules, it is not surprising that Imagery Group did

hot shoW significantly more generalization than did the Auditory Rule

Group, especially since the strategy used by the Imagery Group was new,

and even somewhat strange, and certainly not overlearned. That there

evidence of generalization after one training session and one review is

encouraging.

Some current data on spelling suggest a discussion of another design

principle, the importance of sequencing in strategies, Sloboda (1980)

concluded that good visualization is not crucial to good spelling because

the Ability to vitUalize did not map onto the differences between a group

of good and a group of poor spellers. Similarly, Fisher, Shankweiler, and


20

Liberman (1985) concluded that ability to remember words as visual

patterns did not account for the differences in spelling performance of

groups of good and poor spellers. Furthermore, Mcleod and Greenbough

(1980) found that good and poor spellers do not differ in memory for

pictures.

While these findings appear inconsistent with the thrus:: of the

present study, they are not. It is assumed here that people in general,

and good and poor spellers in particular, do not differ in any fundamental

way in their information processing abilities. It is the strategies that

they use to spell that distinguishes good from poor spellers. That is,

these groups differ in the systmatic way that they sequence their

processing of inforMation. It it not that poor spellers cannot, or even

do not, visualize words, it it that theY Jo not use visualization in a

manner that is useful for speling. For example, some spellers might

translate a word they hear externally into an internal phonetic sound

sequence, then use sound spelling rules to generate internal dialogue of

their voice s;selling the word letter by letter and finally translate that

internal dialogue into a constructed visual image. Thus the strategy is

Aa --> At --> Ad --> Vi, where the At represents auditory tonal

representations and Ad represents auditory linguistic representations (see

Dit1S et al., 1979). This strategy depends on how good the rules are

that generate the At --) Ad link. For pL.7,- spellers, these rules may be

faulty. As a result they will end up With visual images that are

incorrect.

So it iS nOt the ability to process visually (Or in any other

cognitive system) that is the prOblem for poor spellers, rather it is that

the strategy they use doet not generate standard spelling. In this sente

21

Principles for Teaching Cognitive Strategibt

21

the above studies support the position taken here since the opening

Package would not work if poor spellers could not visualize; In shor

teaching methods are best based on the assumption that students'

fundAMental cognitive abilities are intact. In terms of cognitive

ttrate-giet, what it needed is a careful slquencing of the cognitive

processes involved in the knowledge or skill to be taught.

The next design principle addresses how to discover an effective

strategy to teach students. The principle is to focus on a few excellent

performers, students ur profesSionalt, te discover what they do, how they

think, what their experience it. Thit fetus on good performers has been

one of the mcnt productive oUtcemét of the Current cognitve writing

movement. Using excellence As A bat-it, in -contrast, say, to what can be

learned from focusing On poor or diSabled per:Formers, it is possible to

generate a set of experiences for students that Will teach them to

simulate what excellent performers experience. Dilts et al. (1979)

provide extensive procedures for dittovering ttrategies especially those

overIearned and unconscious strategiOS Underlying the familiar, everyday

activities that Applebee (1985) argueS Are in need of more study. For

example, there is ample evidence ih the literature, as well as

pt-enomenologically, that linguistic knoWledge And rUlet Underlie the

spelling performance of maw/ excellent tpellerS (e.g., Baren, Treiman,

WiIf & Kellman, 1980; Waters, BruCk & Seidenberg, 1985) and that

.strategies for spelling-souno rules can be effectiVely taught (Drake

Ehri, 1984; Treiman & Baron, 1983). Bated oh thit, it teemt likely that

effective and teachable strategies could be extracted from particularlY

competent "Phonacians."

Phonetic and visual strategies complement each other Well in

22

Principles for Teaching CognitiVe Strategies

^)L

spelling; Phonetic st-ategies generalize to all words in spoken

vocabularies since they are based on sound-spelling corretpondenceS.

Irregular words that are exceptions to the rules raise difficultiet for

these strategies. But visual stratRgies are ideal for exceptiont.

Combining "Phonecian" with "Chinese" strategies, such as the One OVelUeted

in this study, would provide students with flexible skills for spelling

diverse regular and irregular English words.

23


'17

Works Cited

Applobee A; N. 1985; "Musings...Writing Processes, Revisited."

Research in-the Teachino_of Enq1ish 1 217-215.

Baker, Robert G. 1980. "Orthographic awareness." Cogn4t-i-ve--Frocesses

in Spelling. Ed; Uta Frith; New York: Academic Press. 51-68.

Baron, Johathan G. 1979. "Orthographic and Word-specific Mecanisms in

Children's Reading of Words." Child Development 50: 60-72;

Baron, Jonathan G., Rebeccca Treiman, JenniFer F. Wilf, and Philip

Kellman. 1930. "Spelling and Reading by Rules." Cognitive Processes

in Spelling. Ed. Uta Fh.th. New York: Academic Press. 1 9-194.

Barron: Roderick W. 1980. "Visual and Phonological Strategies in Reading

aria Spellir,g." Cognitive Processes in Spelling . Ed. Uta Frith. New

York: Academic Press. 195-213.

Drake, Dorothy A. and Linnea C. Ehri. 1984. "Spelling Acquisition:

Effects of Pronouncing Words on Memory for Their Spellings."

Copnition and Instruction 1: 297-720.

Dilts, Robert. 1983. "Applications of NLP in Education." Applications

04-Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Ed. Robert DiIts. Cuppertino CA:

Meta Publications. 1-Z9.

Dilts, Robert, John Grinder, Richard Bander, and Judith Delozier. 1979.

Neuro-Linuistic Programming: Volume I. Cuppertino, CA: Meta

Publications.

Dobie Ann B. 1986. "Orthographical Theory and Practice, or How to Teach

Spelling." Journal of Basic WrLinoo C.01t...f 41 -48.

Ehri, Linnea C. 1980. "The Development of Orthographic Images."

Cognitive Processes in Spelling. Ed. Uta Frith. New York: Academic

Press. 311-338.

7


24

FIrgus, Patricia M. 1983. Spelling improvemen. Arth e . New York:

MacMillan.

Fiscoer, F. William. Donald Shankweiler. and Isabelle Y, Liberman; 1985;

'3pelling Proficiency and Sensitivity to Word Structure." Journal of

Memory and Laoguage : 423-441;

Uta. 1978. "From Print tn Meaninc and from Pint to SounJ. or How

to Read withou', Knowing How to Socll" Visible Language 12: 43-54;

---. 1980. "Unexpected Spellici Problvms." Cognitive Processes in

SO-el-ling. Ed. Uta Frith. New YorL: Academic Press. 495-515.

Harris, Muriel. 1983. "Modeling: A Process Method of Teaching."

Coll-ege English, 45: 74-84.

Grinder, John and Richard Bandler. 1076. The Structu:-e of Magic.

Vol. 2. Path Alto, CA.: Science and Behavior Books.

Hayes, JOhn R. ahd Linda S. Flower. 1980. "Identifying the Organization

Of weititqj Processes." Cognitive processes in writing. Ed. Lee W.

Gregg and Erwin R. Sternberg. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum. 3-30.

Keppel, GeOffrey. 1982. Design and Analysis. 2nd Ed. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kiek, Roger E. 1968. Exgerimental Design. Belmont. CA: Brooks/Cole.

Marchant, Barrie and Thomas E. Malloy. 1984. "Auditory, Tactile. and

Visual Imagery in PA Learning by Congenitally Blind, DeRf. and Normal

AdultS." Journal o4-Menta1 IMagery 8: 19-32.

Marsh, George, Morton Friedman. Veronica Welch and Peter Desberg. 1980.

"The Development of Strategies in Spelling." Cognitive processes in

sge44-ing. Ed. Uta Frith. NeW York: Academic Press. 339-354.

McLeod, John and Pauline Greenough. 1980. "The Importance of Sequencing

as an Aspect of Short-term MemorY in Good and Poor Spellers." Journal

25

Principlet for Teachinr; Cognitive Strategies

of- Learnina_Dieabilitiee 13: 255-261.

Mille George A. 1956. "The Magical NUMber Siabn, Plus or Minus TWo:

Som Limits on OUr Capacity for Processing Information." PsychUlOgical

Review 63: 81-97.

Miller George A. Eugene Gclarter, ard Karl Pribram. 1960. Plans and the

structure of t'ehavior. New York: Holt Rinehart And Wintton.

Ormrod, Oeanna E. 1986. "Learning to Spell: Three StUdies at the

University Level." Research in the Teaching-Of-Englith 20: 160-173.

Paivio, Al:can. 1971; Imagery and Verbal Processee. New York: Holt,

Rinehari:, amd Winston.

Personke, Carl and Albert H. Yee. 1966. "A model +Or the analytit of

spelling behaviour." Elementary English 4 : 278-284.

Redeker, Leon D. 1963; "The Effect of Visual Imagery upon Spelling

Performance." Journal of Educational Research 56: 370-372.

Simon, Dom.ythea P. 1976. "Spellinga Task Anal.,eis." Instructional

Science 5: 277-302.

Sloboda, John A. 1980. "Visual Imagery and Individual Differences im

Spelling." Cognitive Processes in Spelling. Ed. Uta Frith. New

York: Academic Press. 271-248.

Treiman, Rebecca and Jonathan Baron; 1983; "Phonemic-analysis Training

Helps Children Benefit from Spelling-sound Rules." Memory_and

Cognition. 11: 382-389.

Watert, Gloria S. Margaret Bruck, and Mark Seidenberg, M. 1985.

"Do Children Use Similar Processes to Read and Spell Words?" Journal

of Experimental Child Psychology 39: 511-530.

Principlbt for Teaching Cognitive Strategies

26

Figure caption

Figure 1. Mean number of errors as a joint function of T,/pb of

Spelling Training and Test.

1 1111 No Treatment ContrOl

410- Auditory Rule Learning

0 Imagery Training

Pretest Guidance Guidance GeneralizationAnd 20 Min. And 1 Wk. And 1 Wk.

Delay Delay Delay

TEST

28

Methods; Word LiSt,s - files.eric.ed.gov · (Dilts, 1983); Personal strategies; A strategy is an...

Documents

Transcript of Methods; Word LiSt,s - files.eric.ed.gov · (Dilts, 1983); Personal strategies; A strategy is an...